The Stoel Rives’ Idaho Appellate Practice Blog provides regular updates on appellate practice before the Idaho appellate courts. Our goal is to build a resource on the procedures, rules, and practices of handling appeals before the Idaho Supreme Court and Idaho Court of Appeals. We intend to provide updates on new decisions, rule changes, and other matters of interest effecting practice before Idaho’s appellate courts.

The summaries of the cases on the blog are prepared by Christopher Pooser, who practices in Stoel Rives’ Boise, Idaho, office.

I have been drafting an article on appellant advocacy for the August edition of the Idaho State Bar’s The Advocate. As part of my research, I reviewed statistical data from the United States Courts of Appeal available at www.uscourts.gov. The website compiles statistics, by circuit, on appeals commenced, terminated, and pending in detailed

The Idaho Supreme Court has released its May calendar [link http://www.isc.idaho.gov/appeals-court/isc-calendar]. It will be hearing arguments in Boise on May 4, 6, and 8, in Idaho Falls on May 12, and in Pocatello on May 13. For the hearings in Boise, you can watch the arguments via live streaming through the above link.

The

When key issues are left to the sound discretion of the trial court, and the trial court carefully weighs the evidence in deciding those issues, should the party on the wrong side of the decision appeal? That is a difficult and recurring question facing appellants. A recent Idaho Supreme Court decision suggests that appellate attorneys

The Idaho Supreme Court is implementing rule changes that will impact, for the most part, intermediate appeals from the magistrate to district court. Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure (“I.R.C.P.”) 83(a) lists the judgments or orders rendered by a magistrate that can be appealed to the district court. Currently, Rule 83(a)(4) allows appeals of “[f]inal orders

As mentioned in a recent post, a panel of law clerks from the Idaho Supreme Court and the Idaho Court of Appeals provided advice on the practice of appellate law, based on their experience as clerks, at the April meeting of the Idaho Appellate Practice Section of the Idaho State Bar. Here are some

The Idaho Appellate Practice Section of the Idaho State Bar held its annual meeting on Thursday, April 9. As part of the meeting, a panel of law clerks from the Idaho Supreme Court and the Idaho Court of Appeals discussed what they have learned regarding the dos and don’ts of appellate practice during their clerkships.

We recently posted blog entries on the continuing saga of Idaho’s final judgment rule. See Feb. 9, 2015 Post; Feb. 12, 2014 Post. As discussed there, the Idaho Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that it will not hear an appeal unless a proper final judgment is entered under Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure (“I.R.C.P.”) 54(a). The Court has also proposed rule amendments to I.R.C.P. 54(a) and Idaho Appellate Rules (“I.A.R.”) 11, 11.1, and 17 that further emphasize the critical importance of securing a final judgment that complies with I.R.C.P. 54(a):

I.R.C.P. 54(a) – the proposed changes require a “partial judgment” or an “amended judgment” to also comply with the requirements for the contents of a “judgment.”

I.A.R. 11 – the proposed changes require a copy of the judgment or order appealed from to be attached to the notice of appeal.

I.A.R. 11.1 – the proposed changes require a copy of the judgment granting or denying a petition for adoption to be attached to the notice of appeal.

I.A.R. 17 – the proposed changes require the notice of appeal to “have attached to it a copy of the judgment or order appealed from.” The form of a notice of appeal must include the following language: “A copy of the judgment or order being appealed is attached to this notice, as well as a copy of the final judgment if this is an appeal from an order entered after final judgment.”

The Court has also proposed fundamental changes to I.R.C.P. 54(b)(1), as those changes limit when a trial court can enter a certificate of final judgment (also known as a “Rule 54(b) certificate”) in an action that is not fully resolved.
Continue Reading Proposed Amendments to Idaho Court Rules Emphasize the Absolute Importance of Securing a Final Judgment and Fundamentally Change When a Party Can Obtain an I.R.C.P. 54(B) Certificate

LuAnn Shubert (“Shubert”) filed a workers’ compensation claim with the Idaho Industrial Commission (the “Commission”). Shubert’s claim was heard by a Commission referee, who excluded two of her exhibits during the hearing. For the most part, the referee denied her claim, and the Commission approved and adopted the referee’s findings of fact. Shubert appealed. One

The Idaho Supreme Court’s decisions in Jayo Development, Inc. v. Ada County Board of Equalization, 2015 Opinion No. 25 (Feb. 26, 2015) and Arnold v. City of Stanley, 2015 Opinion No. 23 (Feb. 26, 2015), add something for appellate attorneys to consider when involved in proceedings where a person is adverse to a